 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 10 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 7135 | 回復: 9 | ||
[求助]
第一次投SCI（PR Letters）,一個R，一個AQ，求助應該怎么辦， 已有6人參與
|
|
本人第一次投SCI，選擇了PR letters，（當時聽別人說的這個審稿時間比較快，就選了這個）結(jié)果是一個R，一個AQ，其中的很多意見都不知道怎么回答， 問題一：從審稿人的意見來看，改后再投還有戲嗎？ 問題二：請問如果大改后再投的話，是不是需要將文章的model和算法都要進行修改？ 問題三：如果轉(zhuǎn)投別的期刊，大家有什么好推薦的期刊（我是做CV中的行人再辨識的），影響因子低沒有問題，主要是好中，然后審稿期不要太長（一年的那種我等不及�。� 我將審稿意見附在下面，請各位給我出出主意吧，謝了 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** {This applies to SUBMITTING AUTHOR Accounts ONLY: You can find any possible ATTACHMENTS FROM THE REVIEWERS by going to the "Manuscript with Decisions" status link in your Author Center and clicking on "view decision letter". They are located at the bottom of decision letter under "Files attached" heading} Dear Mr. Zhao, The reviewing process of your paper submitted to the IEEE Signal Processing Letters is now completed. Comments from the reviewers are attached at the end of this email. (** See note below about attachments). Based on the attached set of reviews, I regret to inform you that I have to decide to REJECT the paper for publication. Two highly qualified reviewers have looked at your manuscript in detail and, in general, they found it not acceptable for publication in its present form. While reviewers found some merit in the developments and experiments, they still find the paper requires a holistic major revision, and clarification of many issues. The first reviewer raises important problems on the approach, while the second reviewer asks for many non-trivial issues to be discussed in the paper. Considering that the decision process for the IEEE Signal Processing Letters is BINARY (papers that need major revisions are not accepted), I regret that I cannot offer you a more positive decision at this point because we do appreciate your interest in publishing in the IEEE Signal Processing Letters. Resubmission of Previously Rejected Manuscripts: Technically, you cannot resubmit a REJECTED manuscript, as it is a REJECTED and CLOSED paper. You would therefore need to submit it as a new manuscript obtaining a new manuscript ID #, following the guidelines in the Author Center (where you would submit your paper to the system) under "RE-SUBMISSION OF A REJECTED MANUSCRIPT" Authors of Rejected manuscripts are allowed to resubmit their manuscripts only once. The Signal Processing Society strongly discourages resubmission of rejected manuscripts more than once. At the time of submission, you will be asked whether you consider your manuscript to be a new submission or a resubmission of an earlier Rejected manuscript. If you choose to submit a new version of your manuscript, you will be asked to submit supporting documents detailing how your new version addresses all of the reviewers' comments. Full details of the resubmission process can be found in the Signal Processing Society “Policy and Procedures Manual” at http://www.signalprocessingsocie ... e/policy-procedure/ Note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission will be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is rendered. Also note that the original Associate Editor who managed the original peer review process is not guaranteed as well. Resubmissions are to be treated as brand new submissions without bias. Sincerely, Prof. Gustau Camps-Valls Associate Editor gcamps@uv.es, gustavo.camps@uv.es * If you have any questions regarding the reviews, please contact the managing Associate Editor who managed the peer review of your paper. Reviewer Comments: Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: R - Reject (Paper Is Not Of Sufficient Quality Or Novelty To Be Published In This Transactions) Comments: The paper presents a method that looks for addressing the problem of matching images that have similar features. They are focused on match images of pedestrians which have been taken with two different cameras. The method is based on learning a specific metric for each datum. In general I see the proposed solution too much complicated, one have to fit a huge amount of parameters. Besides the general parameters: mu, beta, c and P. For each pair of data, one have to find, Wx-> dxK, Wy-> dxK, L-> dxKd. I think that this amount of parameters make the method suffers in overfitting. Although I have my concerns about the method, I would be able to recheck it, if the authors remedied all the issues below. MAJOR ISSUES - Regard the test procedure. Authors say: "At the test time, for a given test image, we find its P-nearest images in the training set and assign the weighting vector of the test image as the linear combination of these P corresponding weighting vectors." This is the critical point of the method. Is it robust for new test images? At least, it does not seem so. For instance, if a test image has not similar images in the training set, the linear combination of the weights of the assigned training images would have no sense. Authors has to justify the robustness of the method for new samples. - Regard the parameters employed. Authors say: "The parameters in our method are set as μ = 0.5, K = 10, β = 2.5, c = 1, P = 5." Authors have to explain which method they have employed to select these values. - It is necessary to present the gradient function for obtaining the solution of the W matrix. - The code of the method has to be publicly available. - Authors have to justify the sentence: "In order to accelerate the optimization process, we design an initial value of weighting matrix as follows." MINOR ISSUES - LCC is not defined in the abstract. - Please change. Recently, a multi-metric based method LAFT [14] is ... -> Recently, a multi-metric based method LAFT [14] was ... - Please change. ...work are presented in Section IV. -> ...work is presented in Section IV. - Page 2. Define \mu before (or just after) equation 5. Additional Questions: 1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in this transaction?: Yes 2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes Explain: 3. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat Novel 4. How would you rate the English usage? : Satisfactory 6. Rate the references: Satisfactory null: Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: AQ - Publish In Minor, Required Changes Comments: Summary: This paper presents a locally adaptive method for person re-identification. Conventional supervised methods for re-id train a single verification model, transform or mahalanobis metric to improve matching accuracy across the views. However, in reality the transform between the two views is likely to be multi-modal, so a single metric is not ideal. This paper builds on the ideas of local coordinate coding and metric learning to build a metric that is adapted to any given pair of points to be matched. The results are competitive with state of the art methods on three benchmark datasets. Overall: + The notion of customising the matching method according to the specific pairs to be matched is powerful but currently under explored in re-id. The main existing approaches are [14], and (un-cited) [A], [B] However this seems to be quite different to both, so is a worthwhile contribution. + The performance is comparable with current state of the art. However, a few issues should be fixed before acceptance: - The dismissal of mixture of experts due to "partitioning the space in a complex way" is a bit too cursory. (Especially since [14] still beats the current work in some settings). - It seems that this paper has 2NxK + dxKd parameters to learn for the weights and the projections respectively, compared to dxd for normal mahalanobis metric learners. This seems like a lot of parameters. Please give some intuition about why over fitting isn't a problem. Especially since MoE is criticised as risk of over fitting. - "modalities" seems to be used to essentially mean camera views. This is confusing, as modality more typically means sensing modalities such as color/texture, image/vision. - P1L59. Is [19] anything to do with multi-metric? Is this the wrong reference? - Around Eq (4), other subscripts are indexes. But I think 'b' in L_{bk} just means basis projection, rather than an index, so maybe use superscript or something else to indicate a basis projection. - Eq(10), shouldn't it be d(x,y) on LHS, not d(\bar{x},\bar{y}) ? - The test time procedure is insufficiently clearly explained. For ease and logic of reading it should be a separate Sec III.C, rather than buried in a paragraph of III.A. Then please explain it in a bit more detail. Why is the test image encoded as NNs in training? (Why not also encoded also in terms of the LCC?) And how are the weights in the linear combination determined? And what is the intuition about the significance of the choice of P? - Citations [A],[B] should be included and discussed/contrasted. - The original LCC paper seemed to learn the anchor points and the weights jointly. Here the anchor is pre-computed by KNN, and then only weights are learned. Some discussion is necessary about what is lost by doing this in terms of the favourable properties/guarantees of LCC. - Sec IV says the feature vector is d=5895 dimensions and K=10. It seems improbable that a Lbar matrix of size 5895 x 58950 can be learned. I suppose there is some missing dimensionality reduction step? Please explain or fill in the missing details. Please check english thoroughly, there are many errors. To mention just a few: - Abstract P1L19-20 makes no sense. Potential to partition? - P1L25 liner -> linear? - P1L37 attention(s) - Various places: "generated by clustering method" is wrong. By a clustering method, or by clustering. - P4L39-40 non-standard english. - P4L20 sufficiently characterise(*) the data - P4L21 even if they come. [A] CVPR'13: Learning Locally-Adaptive Decision Functions for Person Verification. [B] Pattern Recognition 2014: On-the-fly feature importance mining for person re-identification Additional Questions: 1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in this transaction?: Yes 2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field?: Yes Explain: 3. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?: Somewhat Novel 4. How would you rate the English usage? : Needs improvement 6. Rate the references: Satisfactory |
回復此樓» 猜你喜歡
271材料工程求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復
-
材料專碩274一志愿陜西師范大學求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有8人回復
-
288求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有9人回復
-
一志愿武漢理工材料工程專碩調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復
-
085601材料工程專碩求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有10人回復
-
321求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有8人回復
-
一志愿北京化工大學0703化學318分，有科研經(jīng)歷，求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復
-
307求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復
-
266求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有10人回復
-
本人考085602 化學工程 專碩
已經(jīng)有19人回復
» 本主題相關(guān)價值貼推薦，對您同樣有幫助:
- 第一次投SCI，稿件投出去3天了，一點回音也沒有。。。是不是悲劇了？
已經(jīng)有3人回復
- 投稿一篇SCI三區(qū)的文章，第一次編輯說修改，第二次就拒稿了，這是文章不好嗎
已經(jīng)有8人回復
- 第一次寫SCI的人必須有一個強大的心臟�。�！
已經(jīng)有130人回復
- 第一次投SCI，當天就被拒稿了。。
已經(jīng)有77人回復
- 第一次投SCI，被拒，審稿意見求點評
已經(jīng)有5人回復
- 第一次投稿，不知道投哪里？求推薦~材料專業(yè)2-3區(qū)SCI就行~
已經(jīng)有13人回復
- 催化的偏向環(huán)境方面，第一次寫英文，有哪些國外的SCI相對比較好投？？謝謝！
已經(jīng)有5人回復
- 第一次投SCI，三個多月返回SCI修改意見：大修！
已經(jīng)有20人回復
- 第一次投SCI。。關(guān)于修改求助。。
已經(jīng)有20人回復
- 第一次投SCI文章 要求好審稿人
已經(jīng)有6人回復
- JOSA B這樣的狀態(tài)和審稿意見，有戲嗎？第一次搞SCI，心里沒底��！
已經(jīng)有113人回復
- 第一次寫SCI論文，信息類的，投哪個期刊比較好！！多謝各位了��！
已經(jīng)有15人回復
- 第一次投SCI遇到了一些問題，希望大家能給予幫助，謝謝了。
已經(jīng)有6人回復
- 第一次投SCI，不知道編輯的這封接收來信是否應該回復
已經(jīng)有11人回復
- 第一次投稿SCI收到的Decision Letter，另請教問題一個
已經(jīng)有11人回復
- 在線求助高手，第一次投國外SCI的問題（mater charact）
已經(jīng)有16人回復
- 第一次寫SCI，直接用英語好呢還是寫成中文再翻譯
已經(jīng)有41人回復
- 在文后單獨列圖表，正文中是不是就不要插圖表了？（第一次投稿SCI）
已經(jīng)有9人回復
- 第一次投sci的審稿意見，小蟲請教～
已經(jīng)有14人回復
zj15001
木蟲 (小有名氣)
- 應助: 14 (小學生)
- 金幣: 2998.6
- 散金: 1000
- 紅花: 4
- 帖子: 201
- 在線: 91.4小時
- 蟲號: 1838548
- 注冊: 2012-05-29
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 信號理論與信號處理
2樓2014-08-12 21:02:44
glassman782
鐵桿木蟲 (知名作家)
- 應助: 1519 (講師)
- 金幣: 13340.3
- 紅花: 29
- 帖子: 7313
- 在線: 513.9小時
- 蟲號: 468843
- 注冊: 2007-11-28
- 專業(yè): 粉末冶金與粉體工程
3樓2014-08-12 21:15:03
xux730
鐵桿木蟲 (著名寫手)
- 應助: 1719 (講師)
- 金幣: 10740.4
- 散金: 50
- 紅花: 43
- 帖子: 2947
- 在線: 336.5小時
- 蟲號: 1374299
- 注冊: 2011-08-20
- 專業(yè): 細胞周期與調(diào)控
4樓2014-08-12 22:14:20
zkk1222
鐵桿木蟲 (著名寫手)
- 應助: 258 (大學生)
- 金幣: 6989.9
- 散金: 1135
- 紅花: 17
- 帖子: 2165
- 在線: 250.4小時
- 蟲號: 1427489
- 注冊: 2011-10-04
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 天然有機化學
5樓2014-08-12 22:26:46
6樓2014-08-13 10:10:54
7樓2014-10-01 15:44:03
堅強的甜石頭
鐵蟲 (初入文壇)
- 應助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 119.6
- 帖子: 16
- 在線: 4.7小時
- 蟲號: 3622263
- 注冊: 2015-01-01
- 專業(yè): 制造系統(tǒng)與自動化
8樓2015-01-30 22:08:40
誤解1990
木蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 38 (小學生)
- 金幣: 2092.4
- 紅花: 7
- 帖子: 656
- 在線: 171.4小時
- 蟲號: 1170093
- 注冊: 2010-12-14
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃
9樓2015-01-30 23:45:54
yuanmd
至尊木蟲 (知名作家)
銜頭義定自
- 應助: 58 (初中生)
- 金幣: 9949.2
- 散金: 3502
- 紅花: 27
- 帖子: 5262
- 在線: 641.6小時
- 蟲號: 1148791
- 注冊: 2010-11-16
- 專業(yè): 模式識別
10樓2015-07-02 23:31:44
相關(guān)版塊跳轉(zhuǎn)
我要訂閱樓主 61113377 的主題更新
| 10 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑，一志愿:南京航空航天大學大學 ，080500材料科學與工程學碩，總分289分 +3 | @taotao 2026-03-19 | 3/150 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 287求調(diào)劑 +3 | 晨昏線與星海 2026-03-19 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 281求調(diào)劑（0805） +9 | 煙汐憶海 2026-03-16 | 19/950 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料080500調(diào)劑求收留 +4 | 一顆meteor 2026-03-13 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0817調(diào)劑 +3 | 沒有答案_ 2026-03-14 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料專碩306英一數(shù)二 +10 | z1z2z3879 2026-03-16 | 13/650 |
|
|
|
[考研] 070300化學319求調(diào)劑 +6 | 錦鯉0909 2026-03-17 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料，紡織，生物（0856、0710），化學招生啦 +3 | Eember. 2026-03-17 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考博] 26博士申請 +3 | 1042136743 2026-03-17 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 301求調(diào)劑 +4 | A_JiXing 2026-03-16 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 332求調(diào)劑 +6 | Zz版 2026-03-13 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料與化工專碩調(diào)劑 +5 | heming3743 2026-03-16 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 考研調(diào)劑 +3 | 淇ya_~ 2026-03-17 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研]
 11408 一志愿西電，277分求調(diào)劑
+3
|
zhouzhen654 2026-03-16 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 304求調(diào)劑 +3 | 曼殊2266 2026-03-14 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿華中師范071000，325求調(diào)劑 +6 | RuitingC 2026-03-12 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 327求調(diào)劑 +6 | 拾光任染 2026-03-15 | 11/550 |
|
|
|
[考研] 22408總分284求調(diào)劑 +3 | InAspic 2026-03-13 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[基金申請] 現(xiàn)在如何回避去年的某一個專家，不知道名字 +3 | zk200107 2026-03-12 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 329求調(diào)劑 +3 | miaodesi 2026-03-12 | 4/200 |
|